Latest brainstorm. Let’s sue companies who don’t hire the unemployed!

posted at 3:25 pm on September 23, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

Well, at least they’re focusing on jobs, even if only for trial lawyers.

The latest brilliant plan to get people back to work seems to focus on… wait for it… punishing potential employers by dragging them into court on a whole new class of discrimination based lawsuits. The idea, spearheaded by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and a handful of other Democrats, would identify employers who run advertisements which specifically seek to avoid hiring people who are currently unemployed and allow them to be taken to court on some form of discrimination charge.

Lawyers should be allowed to win financial damages from companies that refuse to hire unemployed people, according to a coalition of Democratic legislators, progressive advocates and entrepreneurial trial lawyers.

The existence of even a few advertisements excluding unemployed applicants in the national marketplace justifies a federal law creating a novel market for legal skills, say the advocates.

“We don’t know for sure how extensive it is … [but] if it is on one [job advertisement] website, that’s too extensive for me,” the bill’s chief backer, Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, told the TheDC.

Apparently they have dug up approximately 150 advertisements from across the entire country which include something about unemployed candidates not needing to apply. What this really calls for is some sort of stupidity award for the HR departments at those firms because they’re just asking for trouble. Even if that’s really your intention, it’s easy enough to determine somebody’s employment status from the resume they submit and simply not offer an interview to the unemployed if that’s your preference.

What we don’t need is yet another excuse to go dragging employers into court, driving up their legal costs and, thereby, reducing the resources they have available to hire anyone. While I certainly sympathize with the instinct to see such hiring policies as unfair, (and stupid, frankly) the knee-jerk reaction shouldn’t be to set up a system to create an ever increasing death spiral of lawsuits clogging up the courts. If we improve conditions on the ground for employers to confidently bring on more workers, the available pool of labor shrinks and companies will need to compete for the best talent. It’s really not all that complicated.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

So, if you know someone inside the business, you get a job. If you apply for an advertised job, use a headhunter, or job training program, not so much.
This should help placement firms do well in a tough market, huh?

I don’t agree that it is “unfair.” Protected classes need to be few and far between.
This is another ploy to generate yet another dependent class: the unemployed. So far we extend unemployment benefits for about two years, and now the dems want to require people rolling off funemployment to be hired. If they are not hired they can sue, which is a lot easier than actually working. So, the new career path: work awhile, get laid off, get unemployment for 2 years, try weakly to get hired, don’t get hired, then sue.

“We don’t know for sure how extensive it is … [but] if it is on one [job advertisement] website, that’s too extensive for me,” the bill’s chief backer, Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, told the TheDC

.

Hey wow, let’s come up with as yet another deterrent for economic activity based on almost nothing.

While the lawsuit approach doesn’t help anything — and, in fact, makes things worse by giving companies yet another reason to not even interview people — this is an odd phenomena: why on Earth would companies not want to hire experienced people who are grateful to be rejoining the workforce, and eager to make an impact in their new role? There is some amazing talent out there.

It’s like a guy saying, “I’ll only date women who are already married. And not those who are never-married or divorced.”

If lawyers want to sue employers for these moronic guidelines to be hired by their copanies, they deserve it.

This is utter brainlessness. In this economy, these political waters, and the state of the country, it takes a special kind of idiot to run a help wanted ad that excludes people currently out of a job.

Not that this is a good idea or anything- but it is ridiculous that companies are advertising that they will not hire the unemployed.

Chuck Schick on September 23, 2011 at 3:35 PM

Why?

It makes sense to me.

1. If you’re a company looking for people on the right side of the bell curve – well, those people have jobs for the most part.

2. Why would you want to hire someone who’s been out of the game for months / years? How proficient can they be? In many jobs – you need to keep track of the changes and developments that come out which are involved with it.

3. Do you really want to hire someone who’s only looking for work because their unemployment benefits are running out?

This is utter brainlessness. In this economy, these political waters, and the state of the country, it takes a special kind of idiot to run a help wanted ad that excludes people currently out of a job.

Vincenzo on September 23, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Maybe so. But last I checked it isn’t illegal to be an idiot. This is a business decision that each business owner should be allowed to make.

The Chicago Tribune ran one of these stories recently concerbing boneheaded HR departments placing job ads and including that blurb about the unemployed not needing to apply, which gets you to wondering who the hell were these companies were targeting, the gainfully employed?

But not surprisingly, the bulk of the comments from readers of the article was pretty much a universal battlecry to SUE THE B**TARDS!

Leaving aside the obvious fact that people should be able to hire and fire whomever they want for whatever reason they want, how do we know that the supposed advertisements weren’t planted by lefty fellow travelers?

One has to manufacture a crisis before it goes to waste, and it really stretches credulity to believe that any company would really place such an ad.

Great idea. Let’s help the economy by having thousands of frivolous lawsuits. Dude, you’re making Ernesto seem like a cogent poster.

angryed on September 23, 2011 at 3:43 PM

Our country is framed and supported by the rule of law. A big part of that is civil suit. If people want to waste their money chasing companies for excluding unemployed, so be it. More than likely they will end up paying legal fees and court fees.

If a man cannot have his voice heard in the court of law, we are not a free country anymore.

I never said we should pass more discrimination laws, or that this should be in criminal court.

Leaving aside the obvious fact that people should be able to hire and fire whomever they want for whatever reason they want,

secant on September 23, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Its not a question of hiring or firing whom they’d like. Its a matter of blocking opportunity of employment to a large group of people based solely on their current employment status. It can be perceived as discrimination by a large group of people. I’m not saying it is, simply that we have a court system to hear these matters of someone feels they’ve been wronged.

Yes, advertising that you won’t hire the unemployed is stupid, but since when is stupid illegal?

Frankly, if I were interviewing someone who had been unemployed for 2 years, I would expect a good answer as to what that person had been doing for the past 2 years to keep up his skills or learn new ones. You can’t just sit around and watch TV or play video games. In software development, your skills would decline dramatically in that amount of time as well as become obsolete.

“We don’t know for sure how extensive it is … [but] if it is on one [job advertisement] website, that’s too extensive for me,” the bill’s chief backer, Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, told the TheDC.

Emphasis mine. Don’t know the problem? No sweat, that’s a new law mister.

I would not think of suing a company that did not hire me since I am out of work. Having been told that I would not be considered since I was unemployed after in some cases multiple interviews, I would say a suitable response is a punch in the nose!I would say that is fair for a punch in the gut.

While I certainly sympathize with the instinct to see such hiring policies as unfair, (and stupid, frankly) the knee-jerk reaction shouldn’t be to set up a system to create an ever increasing death spiral of lawsuits clogging up the courts.

Discrimination of any kind ought to be legal.
If a company is stupid enough to refuse to hire Blacks, for example, the public will punish them without getting tax dollars involved.

The American Jobs Act exposes states to frivolous lawsuits while providing a boon to trial lawyers seeking government settlement money. The President made no mention of this boon to the trial bar in his national jobs speech. Nor does the glossy overview of the American Jobs Act (Act) on the Whitehouse website mention this gift. Instead, one must delve deep within the bill to perceive this threat to state governments— 376 sections into it to be exact.

Section 376 of the Act guts the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution by requiring states to forfeit their sovereign immunity rights guaranteed by this Amendment upon receipt of certain government funds. This opens the door for expensive litigation against states. Such litigation is a boon for trial lawyers but serves as a millstone around the neck of drowning taxpayers.

Read the whole story at the link above, but I think every one has fiqured out that Obama and the Democrats are paying their dues to the unions and the trial lawyers—at the taxpayer’s expense.

“What this really calls for is some sort of stupidity award for the HR departments at those firms because they’re just asking for trouble. Even if that’s really your intention, it’s easy enough to determine somebody’s employment status from the resume they submit and simply not offer an interview to the unemployed if that’s your preference.”

Why are they asking for trouble? It’s not illegal. It’s what the company wants. And, as an added bonus, it doesn’t waste the applicant’s time by tricking them into submitting a resume that you won’t even consider. They shouldn’t be asking for trouble, and if that’s what we’ve come to then we need to fix it.

And your suggested strategy won’t make any difference, you know. The next obvious step for these lawyers and their government sponsors will be to demand access to the resumes of the people who did apply in order to establish a pattern of discrimination against those who were or might have appeared to be unemployed. Once being unemployed is a protected class, you can require they be given favored treatment. Sadly, I suspect these people won’t be happy until they can force private companies to hire more employees on demand. As part of their social contract, of course.

If the unemployed workers are amazing and would have received the job if they were allowed to interview, then, they can go be amazing for another company that doesn’t discriminate against the currently unemployed. That company will thrive and the other company will suffer….or not….

In any case, all this means is that they will have to be quiet about the fact they don’t want to interview unemployed people so they’ll get more resumes and just junk resumes from unemployed people.

If I’m reading that piece right, what it amounts to is that any state accepting money under the “Jobs Bill” would be swallowing a poison pill amounting to potential fiscal suicide.

A state would have to be run by fools to accept any money under those conditions. Well, now that I think about it, more than several of our 57 states are not exactly bastions of intelligent leadership.

Lawyers should be allowed to win financial damages from companies that refuse to hire unemployed people, according to a coalition of Democratic legislators, progressive advocates and entrepreneurial trial lawyers.

My f’in head is about to explode. Are the unemployed going to become a protected class? Will BO and his tools in the EEOC establish “unemployed” hiring quotas? Everyday the jackass in the White House gives a speech about creating new jobs and his regulatory Nazi’s issue three new job killing rules before he is done talking. When will this nightmare end?

So show us these examples of the advertisements, tell us who the companies are that placed them.

This has been in the works since they announced the credit for hiring the unemployed. I certainly wouldn’t put it past activists to run what are essentially free ads and inserting language to support the “hire the unemployed or else” rhetoric and this bill.

So show us exactly why we need to pass this federal law. Who are these supposed evil-doers.

it is hard to put into words this leftist “brainstorm”. In addition to all the problems it creates a discrimination Against the poor saps who have taken lesser jobs, part time jobs, so that they can provide money for their family and themselves. They can not afford to be unemployed, so they get screwed.

The reason companies don’t want to interview unemployed candidates is that they are afraid of being sued if they don’t hire them. It is easier not to talk to them at all.
crosspatch on September 23, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Better to run them through a perfunctory interview anyway, at least from a legal standpoint. Afterwards, send them off with a “thank you for applying” and then file their apps away. (Besides, they could find a grain of wheat amongst all the chaff in the process.)

last year I had to lay off one of our brightest and most creative employees. You know nothing, sir or ma’am, if you think unemployment equals unqualified.
You know nothing sir or ma’am, if you feel that a hungry man won’t work harder than a man with a full belly.
Vincenzo on September 23, 2011 at 3:40 PM

you are soooo full it

there is no way you could be a successful private business owner and not understand the implications

wonder what your legal tab is when one of these moronic snafus entangle you

maybe you will get sued just for having more money

hmmm

as for lawyers and the ACLU in particular, I think we put firms in a hat and pick two and kill everyone there

sounds aweful but it’s nothing compared to endless regulations making you more of a super for your property than an owner not to mention those put out of business and their employees who have lost their livelyhood

when I think of the misery incurred by lawyers and politicians it makes ne think we should pull six more from the hat

What about the guy who got laid off a month ago because of a business’s budget cuts? He’s unemployed. That automatically means he’s an incompetenet lazy asswhipe wasting away on unemployment checks?

Borders just went out of business. Now all those employees are just shit of luck tough noogies? Not only the cashiers, stockboys, and security guards. How about the store managers, assistant managers, the Buyers who acquires the books, the payroll managers, the computer techs who maintain the records and computer system itself.

Screw you, you’re unemployed, so that means you are good for nothing sponges waiting for your next unemployment check.

The hateful comments here demonstrate why the unemployed should be considered a protected class: they are clearly despised as a group by bigots.

The notion that unemployed deserve to be that way because they are subhuman losers is a bit like assuming the people who drowned on the Titanic deserved that fate because they should have learned how to swim or weren’t worthy of making the cut for lifeboat seats. Just like Kate Winslet’s odious fiance on ‘The Titanic’. No, they just believed what they were told and picked the wrong ship.

That is how most layoffs happen. When a company acquires a smaller company there are going to be excess people in the overhead departments like Finance. The acquiring company doesn’t have an equal selection of the best-and-the-brightest from both Finance departments, they just pink-slip 99% of people in the acquired Finance department.

Finally, I’ll bet some of these companies refusing to hire unemployed Americans are also the same ones whining for more foreign workers because they supposedly can’t find anyone qualified.

The hateful comments here demonstrate why the unemployed should be considered a protected class: they are clearly despised as a group by bigots.

The notion that unemployed deserve to be that way because they are subhuman losers is a bit like assuming the people who drowned on the Titanic deserved that fate because they should have learned how to swim or weren’t worthy of making the cut for lifeboat seats. Just like Kate Winslet’s odious fiance on ‘The Titanic’. No, they just believed what they were told and picked the wrong ship.

That is how most layoffs happen. When a company acquires a smaller company there are going to be excess people in the overhead departments like Finance. The acquiring company doesn’t have an equal selection of the best-and-the-brightest from both Finance departments, they just pink-slip 99% of people in the acquired Finance department.

Finally, I’ll bet some of these companies refusing to hire unemployed Americans are also the same ones whining for more foreign workers because they supposedly can’t find anyone qualified.

kd6rxl on September 24, 2011 at 5:59 AM

“Bigots”? Seriously? Maybe we’re all “RACISTS!” too? {eyerolling}

Sheesh. Get a grip already. We didn’t hear much about the unemployed being rejected by employers until Democrats decided it would be just a super idea to extend unemployment for 99 weeks.
It’s the moronic legislation which made unemployment a discriminatory problem, not nasty old “bigots” out hatin’ just ’cause they’re mean.

You wanna blame somebody? Maybe you should take a look at the idiots in Congress who CREATED this problem.

That is how most layoffs happen. When a company acquires a smaller company there are going to be excess people in the overhead departments like Finance. The acquiring company doesn’t have an equal selection of the best-and-the-brightest from both Finance departments, they just pink-slip 99% of people in the acquired Finance department.
Finally, I’ll bet some of these companies refusing to hire unemployed Americans are also the same ones whining for more foreign workers because they supposedly can’t find anyone qualified.
kd6rxl on September 24,

Hey, I know a way to avoid having 10 applicant who didn’t get a job sue me for claiming I didn’t hire them due to their unemployment status.

I won’t have a job opening.

Problem solved… for me. For the people who don’t have a job and can’t find one to apply for? Maybe you should sue the government for giving me a situation where I’d be an idiot to even allow anyone to submit an application.

As far as the unemployed aren’t at fault, evil employers are? Booshwah.

You get laid, off, fired, whatever. You go looking. If inside a month you can’t find a job that matches your old one, you look lower. Less pay, close but less of a job, just to get one.

You hit 2 months, you go for anything… You hit 3 months; you do volunteer work just to keep your hand in.

If you’ve hit 6 months and haven’t done a lick of work… you’re probably unemployable; at least in the eyes of many employers. I’ve spoken to several employers past & present about this, and the “dead in the water” line is around 6-9 months even in this market. It’s usually 3-6 months in a “good” market.

If you’re past that, get whatever you can so you’ve at least got a work history. Volunteer work in your field, something to show you’ll work, you can show up on time, and you’re willing to put in some effort. And expect to have to explain the gap in your resume if it’s over a couple months.

If you’ve gone the max 99 weeks without doing any work for anyone anywhere… yes, your resume goes to the bottom of the pile regardless what it looks like. I’m not sure why anyone would expect any differently.

Are you saying a person who hasn’t had a job in two years is equally qualified to someone who got laid off last week? Or that qualifications shouldn’t matter; only “need” matters now?

If I’m hiring someone, I “NEED” to get the work required for that job done in a reasonable time, and of sufficient quality, without someone coming “back up to speed” after a 2 year sabbatical… or does that not count against the unemployed person’s “need” for a job?